5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Vorkuta, in the Republic of Komi.
6.  On 30 October 1996 police apprehended the applicant on suspicion of having committed theft from a garage, together with Sh. Upon arrival at the police station the applicant and Sh. admitted the charges. The applicant told the police the location of the garage they had robbed. It appears from the records of the applicant’s arrest and first questioning that his right to have legal assistance provided by the state or of his own choosing was explained to him. However, he declined the offer initially and said that he would appoint a counsel to defend him during the trial.
7.  On 1 November 1996 the applicant was remanded in custody.
8.  On 28 February 1997 the prosecution authorities referred the criminal case to the Vorkuta Town Court of the Republic of Komi (“the Town Court”) for trial.
9.  On 9 December 1997 the Town Court found that during the pre-trial investigation the applicant had been deprived of an opportunity to appoint legal counsel of his own choosing. In the Town Court’s view, the applicant’s defence rights had not been respected and the charges against him had been based to a large extent on his self-incriminating testimony. Furthermore, the Town Court established that the applicant had been in custody for a year and that he had contracted tuberculosis. In those circumstances it decided to release the applicant on the undertaking not to leave his place of residence, and returned the case to the prosecution authorities for further investigation. The Town Court ordered that all investigative measures, including questioning the applicant, should be conducted in the presence of the applicant’s legal counsel.
10.  In July 1998 the investigating authorities discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant in the absence of any corpus delicti. However, in November 1998 the Deputy Prosecutor of Vorkuta ordered them to be re-opened.
11.  On 18 December 2000 the Town Court examined the applicant’s case. The applicant was represented by K., a counsel appointed by him. The applicant and Sh. denied all charges. They submitted that they had confessed to theft to protect Sh.’s brother. The applicant refused to give any further testimony, relying on his right not to incriminate himself.
12.  The Town Court heard testimonies by a victim, several witnesses and the investigator in charge of the case, who stated that the applicant had been assisted by a lawyer throughout the proceedings, except at times when he had refused to call one. Each time his refusal had been noted in the records of questioning and endorsed by the applicant. The Town Court held that the applicant had admitted the charges and that other evidence examined in the trial proved his guilt. It dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s complaint that he had been questioned on occasion with no counsel present, finding that according to the records of questioning sessions signed by the applicant, he had declined to call a lawyer.
13.  On the same date the Town Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, but ordered the sentence to be lifted under the Amnesty Act of 26 May 2000. On 26 January 2001 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi (“the Supreme Court”) upheld the conviction on appeal.
14.  On 22 December 1998 the applicant brought a court action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, seeking to recover lost wages and obtain compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention. He also claimed damages for his alleged infection with tuberculosis while in detention. He relied on Articles 1070 and 1100 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and claimed 150,000 Russian roubles (RUB). In the course of the proceedings, on 5 July 2001, the applicant increased his claim to RUB 300,000.
15.  In support of his claims concerning his alleged infection with tuberculosis, the applicant provided the Town Court with an extract of his medical record delivered by the hospital of the village of Severnyy on 23 October 1998, and medical certificates delivered by the tuberculosis dispensary of Vorkuta on 23 December 1997 and 5 August 1998. According to those documents the applicant had been diagnosed with tuberculosis in 1997, while in pre-trial detention, and had to follow regular in-patient and sanatorium therapy.
16.  The Town Court delivered its judgment on 23 January 2003. It held that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been lawful and dismissed his claim in respect of compensation for detention. It did not address the applicant’s complaint about his alleged infection with tuberculosis. On 17 March 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment on appeal.